Author
Topic: New lenses ($6800 budget) (Read 12722 times)

My budget is around €5000,- ($6800) for 5 lenses in total. Even though with this amount of money I could go FF, I still don’t like the body size! Lens discussion only please

Lens 1:A prime between 45-100mm with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)I can work with the 50mm, but also the 85 and so on, so I just need 1 that is the best.

Lens 2:A mid-range zoom with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)Everything below 20mm to above 40mm is fine.

Lens 3:A decent lens for macro between 85 and 100mm. I don’t have a preference for the aperture here.

Lens 4:I have the 18-135, but I don’t find that sharp enough. I do like the zoom range though. Is there anything that comes close to the range, but sharper?

Lens 5:A zoom that goes beyond 250/300mm. If that is achieved by a teleconverter that is fine by me, if that gives me better results.

Lens 1: 85 L ($2k)Lens 2: 24-70L find the mk 1 lens used. It is sharp enough for the 70d and you can grow into ff. Lens 3: 100 buy the non L lens. If you are not really interested in hand held macro, the is is not very useful and saves some $ for the 70-200Lens 4: 70-200 L IS f2.8. This is again $2kLens 5: 1.4x converter

For the wide end is would suggest 10-22 ef-s

This will give a good range with only one lens away from a full frame set.

I strongly recommend that you do not purchase 5 lenses when getting started in photography. Even if you are already knowledgeable (say moving from Nikon) I still highly recommend that you stick with two lenses and hold the rest of your budget for later. The following are my reasons

- You aren't exactly sure what you enjoy photographing the most- Lenses are complicated beasts. You need to spend a lot of time with a lens to understand its capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses.- Some lenses (such as macro) require specific genre expertise that will require significant time themselves- When trying to fit things in a budget, you may compromise on lenses that will frustrate you and be more difficult to sell

In terms of which lenses to buy, that depends on what you most want to photograph. Personally I would probably pick up a 70-200/2.8 II + 24-70 2.8 II - which would cover a very fair range.

I strongly recommend that you do not purchase 5 lenses when getting started in photography. Even if you are already knowledgeable (say moving from Nikon) I still highly recommend that you stick with two lenses and hold the rest of your budget for later....

I think that is excellent advice.

I know you are asking only for lens advice but I would really consider something like this:

$6800 lens budget plus $1200 cost of 70D (B&H) = $8000

5D mk III - $330024-70 II - $200070-200 II - $2200

Total cost after rebates $7,500

The 5D3 might be more than you need but this really is a dream setup if you've got the budget and it serves your needs.

Later use the $500 towards the 100L Macro and if you buy from B&H, you will have a bunch of points which might make up the difference.

Also:Consider renting a larger camera (5D) for a weekend and see if it really is too large for your small hands. If it is, then maybe the 6D is an option. Either way, I'd take a hard look a FF bodies before finalizing on the 70D.

1: 50mm f1.2, as you already referred to this focal lenght, this is one of the best options for portraiture in APS-C and low light.

2: 17-55 f2.8 or 15-85mm will give you a boost in your IQ. If you move to FF, the suggestions is 24-70 f2.8L II.

3: 100L IS Macro is the best macro lens.

4: 70-300L renders a beautiful IQ and it's a good all around lng zoom but, I replaced it by the combo 70-200mm f2.8L IS II + 1.4X TC to get benefit from the large aperture and sharpness of this lens. I ramdonly found myself using a lens with focal range longer than 200mm in APS-C.

I am considering getting the Canon 6D as well due to its low light capabilities and limited budget.

I strongly recommend that you do not purchase 5 lenses when getting started in photography. Even if you are already knowledgeable (say moving from Nikon) I still highly recommend that you stick with two lenses and hold the rest of your budget for later.

I agree with this as advice; it sounds like you've got a few things you photography regularly, so upgrading those is probably smart. But assuming the 70D is exactly what you'll want in a year, and spending $7k on lenses supporting that might not be the wisest choice.

So, based on what you currently shoot, it seems like the 70-200 f/2.8L II is a good bet. It covers the longer half of the 18-135 range and gets you up to 400mm w/ TC. Sharp, great for portraits. You could also buy the 24-70mm f/2.8L II and have that combo be as sharp as possible. A Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 would cover the wide end if you really wanted it (as 18mm vs 24mm isn't as big as 10mm vs 18mm in difference).

Reality is that if body size is a concern, maybe the Sony A7 is up your alley. Or if you havent actually picked up a 6D, you should, because the size difference from a 70D is tiny. And making all your choices based off the 70D (and getting APS-C/EF-S lenses) would lock you into choices you can't fix if you go full-frame

I didn't put any primes bc if you dont want a fast lens (1.8-1.2) a zoom is a good choice. If want a Prime go with the Canon Ef 40 2.8 is a fun cheap lens and maybe Canon Ef 24 2.8. Or the Canon Ef 35 2.0.But I wouldnt get a prime until you have tried the zooms.

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

I fully understand you as I went similar way. I bought 7D (this is my first DSLR) as FF cameras are really expensive. However, I decided to invest into lenses, which I am planning to use at least for decade when camera after few years becomes obsolete. Also, I bought lenses with a mind that in the future I will have FF camera and., accordingly, my lenses should be FF compatible. My advices regarding lenses is the following:

Lens 2: Tamron 24-70 mm 2.8 VC - very sharp and quality lenses. Actually it is my walk-around lens. Quality is much better comparing Canon 24-70 2.8L MkI, however, sharpness is slightly worse than MKII version (but Tamron has vibration control (Canon IS equivalent) which gives advantage over Canon 24-70 2.8L MKII). Also, Tamron is 2x cheaper than Canon equivalent. In my opinion, Canon is very very good lens but not worth that money.

Lens 3: Cannon 100 mm 2.8L IS Macro - very sharp lenses. Very good price for the quality.

Lens 4: You could replace your 18-135 by Canon 24-105 4L but is not worth to do that. I use my Tamron 24-70 2.8 almost 90% of all my shootings as this lens is faster and much better quality. I use 18-135 when I am in various trips abroad only when I am near the sea and I am not afraid that salt water might spoil my lenses

Lens 5: Canon 70-200 mm 2.8L IS II USM - definitely it is the BEST telezoom in the market. Yes, it is expensive but I 100% recommend it. It is very sharp, focus is very accurate and fast. Also, its manufacture recently started and I do not expect that this lens will be replaced / improved at least for 5-10 years in the future.

With all the deals going on during holiday season. I just upgraded my body and lenses. Sold my 6D, 24-105mm, 85mm 1.8, 430EXII and 270exii and just kept my 40mm 2.8 pancake. 1. 6D upgrade to 5D. Sold 6D for $1200. Got the 5D kit for $3239 and sold 24-105 kits lens for $600 So $1439 to upgrade to the 5D mk3.2. Sold the 24-105 lens that came with my 6D for $600 and got the 24-70 mk2 for $1999-$300 rebate. So another $1100 to upgrade my lens to the new 24-70 mk2. 3. Sold the 85mm 1.8 for $300. Debated for a while to get the 85mm 1.2 or 70-200 2.8 mk2. Decided to go for the 70-200 2.8 mk2 for versatility and be able to use as a portriate lens. So another $2099-$300 rebate. 4. Sold the 430exii for $200 and 270exii for $100 and purchase the 600ex rt for $450. Spend another $150 to upgrade the flash witch a rarely use. 5. Decided to get the 100mm 2.8L Macro lens for $884-$150 rebate. Just in case I get interested on macro shots and Also be able to use as a portraite lens. Debated on this one also with the 135 2.0L, but decided to get the 100mm 2.8L since I already have the 70-200mm 2.8 mk2. Spend about $5223-$750 rebate when I receive all of it. This is the best set up for me and should last me for the next couple of years. I might add the 85mm 1.2L later.

You could go for the sigma 8-16mm (~600) or the tokina 11-16mm (~450) instead of the canon version. You could wait for the rumored sigma 24-70 f2 instead of the Tamron 24-70... depends though if you want to wait on a rumor.. Spend the rest on lighting (umbrellas, stands, softboxes, flashes, strobes, reflectors, etc) and maybe other accessories. Lighting is not cheap but sooo necessary for alot of things! I envy your ability to spend so much on camera equipment.

If I were spending your money and rewriting your lens collection, I'd sell your current lenses except the 50/1.8 (18-135 NON-STM, and 70-300 NON-L) and put that $350-400 towards the overall budget, making it $7200-ish.

Enough people have done exactly what you asked them NOT to do and talked about the CAMERA, so I'll just focus on the lenses (with one exception)...

Lens 1:A prime between 45-100mm with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)I can work with the 50mm, but also the 85 and so on, so I just need 1 that is the best.

You mentioned that you use your 50mm/1.8 for portraits and some macro but that it's not ideal for macro - in my opinion, the 50mm field is a situation of picking the least of various evils. The 50/1.2 is expensive and no better than the Canon 50/1.4 at equivalent apertures so you're paying a $1000 premium for a fraction of a stop and being able to say that the bokeh is "dreamy" (and sharpness is non-existent) at f/1.2. That's a lot of coin for crappy bragging rights, IMO. The Sigma 50/1.4 is better than the Canon 50/1.4, but there seem to be some reliability issues among users when it comes to focus accuracy - so you may play the lens lottery which is a P.I.T.A. The 50/1.8 is crap until f/2.8 so... what's the point? Well, you said f/2.8 is fine - so keep it and use it there. My recommendation? 85/1.2 LII. You wanted sharp... this is $2000 worth of SUPER SHARP! If you want to replace your 50/1.8 then the new Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 is a RIDICULOUS lens when it comes to sharpness. You said you didn't mind manual focusing - this is a non-AF lens and is sharper than anything else you'll find, but it's half your budget. Personally, I say stick with the 50/1.8, use it at 2.8, and add the Canon 85/1.2 LII.

Lens 2:A mid-range zoom with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)Everything below 20mm to above 40mm is fine.

Since you're keeping your 50mm/1.8, the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 constant zoom lens is a REAL option. Really sharp and REALLY fast! If it's turns out not to be then the obvious choice is the Canon 17-55/2.8 as it's sharp, covers a great range, and has IS. The 50mm f/1.8 at 2.8 is roughly equal to the 17-55 at 50mm at f/2.8 in terms of sharpness - but the bokeh is better on the 17-55 and you get IS. Should you go with the 17-55, sell the 50/1.8.

Cost: $800 +/- depending on which lens you purchase. Maybe as low as $700 when you factor in that you can sell the 50/1.8 if you go with the 17-55.

Lens 4:I have the 18-135, but I don’t find that sharp enough. I do like the zoom range though. Is there anything that comes close to the range, but sharper?

Yup! The NEW 18-135 STM. But, you're well covered with the lenses above in terms of sharpness. Either skip the large range zoom OR, buy the NEW 18-135mm STM lens. The glass has been updated and it's a much sharper lens than the old 18-135 lens. As a bonus, it'll work like a CHAMP for video with your 70D. The STM lenses have focusing motors and IS systems that are made specifically for video - they're SILENT

Lens 5:A zoom that goes beyond 250/300mm. If that is achieved by a teleconverter that is fine by me, if that gives me better results.

BEYOND 300 without a teleconverter leaves only a few options. The Canon 100-400 is an obvious option. Tamron just announced a very large lens, the 150-600 that seems to test well. There's also a 70-200 or 70-300 plus 2x teleconverter. Too many options here to list - homework time

Now... one place you're missing some critical range (for some people) and that's the UWA end. In my opinion, when you're using an UWA, you're usually out walking around a LOT. That means, LIGHT WEIGHT is GOOD! The Canon EOS M + 11-22mm IS lens is an obvious choice for this scenario, IMO. The cost is roughly the same as the Canon 10-22 and the lens is BETTER except for the max aperture and 10 vs 11mm.

Cost: $600-650. Another possible use for this money is lighting like an external flash (or 2, or 3), etc.

Total cost of all options above except the telephoto zoom = max of $4600 (before taxes) unless you buy the 55mm Zeiss. It could be $400 less if you go with the Canon 17-55 as opposed to the Sigma 18-35 and the non-L 100mm macro. That leaves you $2600-$3000 for your telephoto solution (because remember, you sold your 18-135 and 70-300 in my scenario). That's enough for the top of the line Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ($2500) and 2x teleconverter!

canon rumors FORUM

I've been a bit too enthusiastic about photography stuff. I've decided to buy the Canon 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 and use the rest for a vacation and savings. Still thanks a lot for your suggestions all!

Decided to get the 100mm 2.8L Macro lens for $884-$150 rebate. Just in case I get interested on macro shots

Is this guy for real?Buying a L lens "just in case" he gets interested on macro shots. Get a camera, get a lens and go out there and shoot. Find out what you like shooting the most then upgrade your lens. Are you planning on shooting wild life or sports? No? Then why go beyond 200mm? Landscapes? No? Why go below 24mm? Buying 6000K of lenses to begin with is CRAZY! You are obviously lucky to have tons of money so get the 5D mk III and the 24-70mm L II which is a DREAM COMBO! Go out and shoot. And in a few months come back with a question like "I realy like to shoot portraits and would like a little more reach, should I get the 100mm L 2.8, the 85L, the 135L or the 70-200mm L 2.8...